Powered by TypePad

« Smooth Sailing With The Captain | Main | Practical Problems With Perjury »

November 07, 2005

Comments

p.lukasiak

" Indonesia, Columbia, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala."

geez, can you say "black ops profile"...

and Vallely is heavily tied in with the Bolton-neocon faction. He was among the signatories to a letter endorsing Bolton for the UN that reads like a whos who (or rogues gallery) of neo-conia...

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000458.html

(toward the end)

****************
and yes, Boris, I know what "paraphrase" means, and I apologize for not closing my tags.

Now, if only you would stop trying to argue Libby's case by taking his testimony completely out of context....

TP

Vallely gives some important up close and personal clues as to Joe’s personality. For example, if he is as voluble as everybody thinks he is, it brings into question Kristof’s limpid preemptive strike that Joe didn’t tell him everything.

Judy’s lost notebook is an important source of discovery and discovery leads for the defense. It, combined with her testimony that she forgot the source for the “Flame” entry will be used to impeach her entire testimony.

I would expect a lot of discussion of how reporters and powerful people exchange information. Their relationships are symbiotic. They exchange information and they don’t necessarily do it in the form of declarative sentences. It is more likely to come in the form of questions that give little hints. For example:

Libby: Do you think it is possible that the ambassador in the Kristof story has a relative at the CIA?
Judy: I don’t know. Has the name “Flame” ever come up?

It is through these exchanges that people gain the complete picture of things they are not supposed to know and the illusion of discretion is maintained.

I am still fascinated as to why this story started with an op-ed rather than a news story. I still wonder if Joe tried to slip it in to the press as a news story and, because of inexperience in how to peak a reporter’s interest, blew his first attempt with somebody other than Kristof.

Syl

p.luk.

"AFTER Libby had already told the FBI, and testified before the grand jury, that he was unaware of Wilson's wife until he heard it from Russert."

Prove it.

jukeboxgrad

Boris claims this is what Libby was trying to say: "I didn't want to let on that I already knew."

If that's what Libby was trying to say, this would have been a good way for him to say it: "I didn't want to let on that I already knew."

Then again, maybe the Yale-educated attorney-novelist is like Dubya, and has trouble expressing himself clearly using the English language. I doubt it.

TM

Boris--Libby did not tell FitzG that he knew officially, and pretended to Russert he didn't know. Libby initially denied knowing about Wilson's wife prior to hearing it from Russert, then when confronted with the evidence of his conversation with Cheney, changed his testimony to (paraphrase) "I forgot THAT conversation, so when I heard it from Wilson, it came as a surprise."

Source, please? Having read the indictment and Fitzgerald's press conference, I have not seen clear proof that Libby initially concealed his many prior conversations about Plame (some of which might well have been in his "copious" notes). SO I am intrigued by the news that he "changed" his testimony.

From the press conference:

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took and oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.

He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.

When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.

p.lukasiak

Prove it.

syl, if you haven't read the indictment, why are you even here?

(note... I may have made a small mistake. It appears that Libby's story changed between his first and second FBI interviews, not between grand jury testimonies.)

r FLANAGAN

Syl ,

Fair enough . If Russert already knew
about Valerie that creates at least the possibility that he might have told Scooter .

p.lukasiak

I have not seen clear proof that Libby initially concealed his many prior conversations about Plame

Libby pretended to the grand jury that he was unaware that Wilson's wife was CIA when Russert (allegedly) told him.

Yet not only did Libby discuss it with various people besides Cheney in June, he acted upon that information, and disclosed to both Air Fleischer on July 7 and Judith Miller on July 8 -- both events occurring a few days before the conversation with Russert.

In other words, Libby's story is that he forgot that wilson's wife was CIA in the two day period between July 8 and July 10, after retaining that information for a month.

Syl

p.luk.

Okay. Fair enough.

arrowhead

Looks like General Vallely has stirred up quite a hornet's nest and upset poor Mr. Wilson and his supporters. Good, good.

Syl

p.luk.

'Fair enough' on the 'prove it' business.

But I disagree that it's totally obvious that he claimed he really forgot. As said above, why be careful not to confirm something you don't know.

clarice

No one interested in my strategy for Libby, huh?

boris

Does your "small mistake" mean you retract Libby did not tell FitzG that he knew officially ???

It seems Fitz agrees with me on that.

Libby's story is that he forgot

In your quoted statement Libby does does not claim he forgot. The inference from "at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known" is not unreasonable but is inconsitent with "I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said".

Again, why deliberately avoid confirming somenthing unknown or forgotten? So Libby's statement is either internally inconsistent or he's inarticulately saying something other that what you interpret.

My paraphrase is internally consistent if implausible and is simply meant as an example suggesting reasonable doubt.


Appalled Moderate

Syl:

How do you read ambiguity into what Libby said with respect to his conversation on Russert? I mean, are you really arguing what Libby did here was an ill-described episode of self-hypnosis?

Jim E.

boris keeps bringin' the jokes.

In his 7:37AM comment, he writes: implausible = reasonable doubt

boris

I have figured out a decent strategy for Libby to get this thing over fiast, one which has no downside, gives him momentum and sets the framework in the public eye. Maybe I'll tell. Maybe I wont.

Do tell. Please.

Appalled Moderate

clarice:

Libby might be interested. If the Boris approach is what he has to rely on, he'd better be interested. (No offense, Boris, but "reasonable" doubt has to be reasonable, and a tortured parsing of words is likely not.)

p.lukasiak

But I disagree that it's totally obvious that he claimed he really forgot. As said above, why be careful not to confirm something you don't know.

I can think of two explanations...

Libby is lying, but in his attempt to "sell" the lie, he went slightly overboard.

The second is that Libby was lying, and wanted to give the impression that he would never risk the possibility of outing a CIA agent inadvertently.

But there is no question that Libby testified (pursuant to his Russert conversation) that "at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning." And in testifying about his conversation with Cooper, Libby said "I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was – all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters. "

boris

So many ways to parse. What was he really trying to say ??? What was he thinking and when ???

The less obvious it all is the better for Libby.

clarice

Dow Jones has a suit to compel the US Ct of Appeals to open the redacted material the SP filed in the Miller case. From p. 29 of J. Tatel's opinion it is clear the SP argued that Plame was overt and her outing created a serious national security probelm.

Libby should join in that suit and argue that he has reason to believe (see above) that the government made those claims and that the are false, indeed they form a fraudulent predicate for the entire investigation that let to his indictment and that being so he should be allowed to see them so that he can have evidence from which to argue that because of this fraud in its inception the prosecution should in good conscience be dismissed.

Then he argues, Plame was not covert (witness Toensing)--two outings(Ames) and the agency to Cuba. Outing by Harlow, Outings by Wilson,
If she was listed as covert, it was a misclassification--call Goss.

If it she was listed as covert and it was not a misclassification, the agency failed to take proper steps to protect her covert identity--Not shutting up Wilson, Harlow, etc.

As to the harm to national security, bring Woodward as a witness to discuss the informal assessment.
Ass Goss if there has been a formal assessment.
Argue that the only reason not to have done a formal assessment was to cover the fact that there was no damage and the suit was fraudulent.

If he gets the papers he seeks, he uses them to argue for dismissal.
If he fails, he seeks the same sort of thing thru discovery--but he has made his defense one which is clear and strong and I do not see a downside toit.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

Very interested. What will it take to get you to tell?

clarice

Look up==It's there, bad spelling and all.

Jim E.

Although I risk getting dumber and dumber reading these comment threads, it sure is entertaining. THanks clarice!

boris

Don't know the legal angles, but it looks good for strategy and discovery. Is there a PR upside as well?

Appalled Moderate

Clarice:

If I remember right, the Paula Jones case finally was dismissed, but Clinton still had to take a plea bargain on perjury. It's the analogy that seems appropriate here, though I gotta say, this seems a worthwhile avenue for Libby's attorneys. Since this one is going to be fought in the media, it also has the advantage of making the media squirm all the way through.

I wonder if Libby should just do pleadings to this effect, rather than join the lawsuit. Hmmm. I think intelligent critical comment needs a lawyer. Toast, Geek! get over here. You're needed!

narciso

Ah, Bob, you hold General Vallely's expertise against him; in Indonesia;
which was toppled by Soros's funny money scam, that left the region open for Al Queda infiltration; now seems to be going back to form under GeneralYudhono (no puns please)El Salvador,seems not to have fallen to that KGB plant Handal, but for the party affiliated with urban paramilitary and couterinsurgency; Not surprising considering
it's history with Gen. Hernandez; and Ubico
in Guatemala, back when Ft. Benning was not
a preferred stop on those country's security forces; Panama, that same party sports an Aggie for president; so don't insult the home team; Of course the same could be said of the grand statesman Wilson;
he was a resource officer in Niger, at the time, when Quaddafi was starting to acquire
his nuclear program; according to John Cooley's 1983 tome; He was in South Africa
next;(enough said) He was in Iraq, after some Democratic staff work; and for his good
work was sent to Gabon? He brags in his book
about the Administration's record on Africa
in the 1990s (After Rwanda,(trained by French and Belgian security services)Congo, Zaire; where Kabila, actually staged from Rwandan camps)and lets not forget Petrochina (with assistance from G&S majordomo Corzine) and Total linked; slaving, Christian starving Al Queda enclave Sudan; Of the "Bolivia of
West Africa" Niger, we have already mentioned; except to say that at least
one of the Iraq meet and greet; occurred
in Algiers, not Niamey.

clarice

I think so.

And I bet the press is so desirous to get this pitched, we will find many reporters offering to say they knew.:)

clarice

Boris,There's a lot of pressure on for a Congressional investigation.And this would avoid one.

We all know that Plame wasn't covert and if Woodward is right (and the facts seem to suggest he is) there was no harm to national security.

Toensing and others withknowledge of the Agency have argued the referral was ridiculous.
This way the blame for any dismissal will not be on the SP or the Agency but right where it belongs--the people in the Agency responsible.
BTW Here boss (Pavitt reires) and the two officials above him were fired by Goss.

Syl

Clarice

Excellent!

And another thing Wilson himself said she was not 'clandestine' (not an official word) at the time she was 'outed'. I think her 'outing' only meant that she could never be clandestine again.

Of course never being clandestine again was made a sure thing by the Vanity Fair spread.

boris

I risk getting dumber and dumber

Not to worry, don't think you can possibly get much dumber.

clarice

ahem--her boss (Pavitt) retired and the two officials above him were fired by Goss.

p.lukasiak

Clarice, you talent for fantastic fiction is being wasted on this blog. With a little bit of effort, you could be the next Ursula le Guin.

Here's your first clue. Libby has a right to all relevant information compiled by the government through the "discovery" process.

Here's a second clue. The existence of an underlying crime is not an issue in this case.

Here's a third clue. Toensing is not in a position to testify about anything other than her own partisan efforts at self-promotion.

And here's the final clue. Nobody is gonna believe that Patrick Fitzgerald deliberately and fraudulently made erroneous claims in order to force Judith Miller to testify -- well, nobody but the wingnuts.

clarice

Kind of a fruits of the poisonous tree thingy--and one that has a clear and sympathetic storyline.

clarice

Ah--here's the beauty of it--you're not blaming the sp--but rather the people in the agency who apparently fed him the false information upon which he relied.

boris

you talent for fantastic fiction is being wasted on this blog

And your lame sarcasm reveals more eveidence that moonbats lack the irony gene.

clarice

The people who sent Joe on the mission and didn't make him sign a non-disclosure agreement or shut him up when he started yakking about it and who confirmed her employment to Novak--those people.The people who apparently have stalled on making a formal damage assessment..

p.lukasiak

We all know that Plame wasn't covert

gee Clarice, you actually know for a fact that at no time in the five years prior to her being outed as a covert agent that Plame never left the country on spy business? That she never even attended a soiree at a foreign embassy in DC, where she maintained the fiction that she was not working for the CIA?


TP

The CIA is potentially a bigger story. The press doesn't have to deal with another individual assserting his pain-in-the-ass 6th Amendment rights. My guess is that the press might cover the story with a vengeance. The Wall Street Journal would be all over it. In the end, Libby doesn't come to trial for quite a while, if ever.

clarice

Yes--even her husband said so. And she has twins whi are 5 or 6 years old.

clarice

It's sweet, I think. Kept me up all night thinking of it.

clarice

Why should both Libby and the government go thru years of protracted litigation and tons of money if the case should be pitched at the outset, and there's good reason to believe the proof that it should be dismissed is right in the papers before the Ct (per J. Tatel's opinion).

Appalled Moderate

p:

Clue 1: Would fitz be obliged to supply stuff on Plame's status, as the charge is perjury, not the outing itself?

Clue 2: That's why I tend to doubt any such move works under the Law.(Court of pub opinion is very different.)

Clue 3: This is the nub of Clarice's arguments -- was Plame covert or not? I have been fascinated by rumors that Fitz couldn't get this charge out of the grand jury. Wish we knew if the rumors were bogus or not.

Clue 4: I agree with p here. He's an honest prosecutor who believes he is pursuing a crime.

p.lukasiak

oh, btw Clarice...

If I give a secret to the russians, and you give the same secret to Israel later, we're both guilty of the same crime.

In other words, the whole "Joe Wilson outed his wife" crap is completely irrelevant, because "classified" status is not removed from information simply because it may have been compromised at some point.

Its not like the CIA declassified everything that Aldrich Ames betrayed...

Jim E.

clarice presented a long, convoluted legal strategy, and then she reveals that she has no clue what fruit-from-the-poisonous-tree "thingy" actually means. (And it's not a complicated concept.) What a shock.

clarice

I don't think the SP is thinking or prosecuting Rove, and if he does, this should set that idea back.

As for Libby, his counsel needs to get security clearance and go thru discovery procedures (and that 6th Amendment thing will create even further delays as the press fights his demand for more information than they gave the SP). In the meantime, he's hanging.
Why not give this a shot?


Oh, I think he could get in this case--he's merely supporting Dow Jones' application to unseal the records and they've made a decent case there is no reason to continue to keep them sealed. I think he'd get them.

In essence it's a discovery motion.

clarice

If the government searches your house under a falsely sworn affidavit, everything they find is thrown out.
By the same token if the predicate for an investigation proves to have been fraudulent, the case should be dismissed.

p.lukasiak

Clue 1: Would fitz be obliged to supply stuff on Plame's status, as the charge is perjury, not the outing itself?

yes. FitzG stated in the indictment that Plame's CIA employment was classified, and would have to provide the evidence on which he based that claim.

Clue 3: This is the nub of Clarice's arguments -- was Plame covert or not? I have been fascinated by rumors that Fitz couldn't get this charge out of the grand jury. Wish we knew if the rumors were bogus or not.

I suspect that the rumors are bogus, because Grand Juries are notoriously malleable, and all the prosecutor needs is "probable cause" for the indictment. The fact that Libby was informed by Cheney that Plame worked for the Counter Proliferation Bureau (ie, part of "covert" operations) would be sufficient to establish "probable cause" that Libby knew Plame was covert.

The more likely explanation is that FitzG is a smart prosecutor, and knows that the "outing" case would both be quite weak and considered the central charge of the indictment. Juries (despite instructions to the contrary) will sometimes acquit on perjury and obstruction charges when the find a defendant "not guilty" of the central charge.

clarice

Well, I think it apparent from the Tatl remark the agency claimed in the Miller case that Plame was covert and didn't charge that in the indictment..

TP

Clarice,

Are Toensing and Digenova representing Dow Jones in this most recent filing? They did represent the press as a whole in the Amicus filing during the GJ. My guess is that the suits at the press don't want a possible Libby trial to be about them--they would rather have it about the CIA thereby saving themselves from really intrusive discovery and giving them a new scandal.

boris

Clarice,

I like the "good offense" type of defense in general. This is all helping Goss clean up as well.

Patrick R. Sullivan

No one seems to have noticed that if Vallely's story is true, then Joe Wilson appears to have lied to Fitzgerald's investigation. Which, as Scooter can tell him, is a crime.

clarice

Yup, Boris--
I don't know who's representing Dow Jones. If it is Toensing, she co-authored the Agee Act and has written with her co-author that it is inapplicable.He could be the witness in her stead..

BTW here's a little gem:


The American Spectator adds more details to the puzzle of who authorized Wilson’s trip and who referred the Plame non-outing to the Department of Justice:

A source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Valerie Plame—who suggested her husband for the Niger mission—was too low on the CIA totem pole to have approved and paid for the mission. The source also told me that Judith (“Jami”) Miscik, then the CIA”s deputy director for intelligence, was the person who signed off on the Wilson mission. Plame’s WINPAC directorate was under Miscik in the chain of command. Miscik was fired by new CIA director Porter Goss late last year during Goss’s housecleaning in which Deputy Director John E. McLauglin resigned and Deputy Director of Operations James Pavitt retired.

The CIA, through one of its spokesmen, declined to comment on whether it was Miscik or someone else because of pending legal proceedings. And, in context with other information, it appears that Miscik would not likely have been the one. Logically the person who approved the Wilson mission would have had to be some senior person in the Operations Directorate, possibly the now-retired Pavitt.

Regardless of who started the mission, the CIA responded to the Novak column by sending a classified criminal referral—the allegation of criminal conduct requesting a formal investigation—to the Justice Department. When it did so, it had to have known that Plame’s status was not covert (as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982) and probably knew ” it is an intelligence organization, after all ” that Wilson had blabbed his wife’s identity around town. Why, then, was the criminal referral made? Who approved it? Such actions had to be approved at least by the CIA general counsel and probably by CIA Director Tenet or at least his deputy, McLauglin. Why did they do that knowing what they must have known?

The December 30, 2003 letter from Deputy Attorney General Paul Comey appointing Patrick Fitzgerald special prosecutor, says, in part: “I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity” What was the allegation? If it were made falsely—say with the knowledge that Plame’s identity wasn’t covert or had become public—the person who made the referral may have committed a serious crime. http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=3613






topsecretk9

New leak probe, Drudge

GOP LEADERS TO LAUNCH NEW 'LEAK' PROBE; INFO TO WASH POST CAUSED 'DAMAGED NATIONAL SECURITY'
Tue Nov 08 2005 11:36:31 ET

**Exclusive**

Sources tell Drudge that early this afternoon House Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist will announce a bicameral investigation into the leak of classified information to the WASHINGTON POST regarding the “black sites” where high value al Qaeda terrorists are being held and interrogated.

MORE

Said one Hill source: “Talk about a leak that damaged national security! How will we ever get our allies to cooperate if they fear that their people will be targeted by al Qaeda.”

According to sources, the WASHINGTON POST story by Dana Priest (Wednesday November 2), revealed highly classified information that has already done significant damage to US efforts in the War on Terror.

Developing...

TP

Clarice,

Would this case even involve the SP ? It would seem to me that it would be about a fraudulent referral to the DOJ that Fitz took on in good faith. It would also cause Libby to ask for an extension of his own trial until this matter is settled. Fitz would get a vacation from the DC looney bin for a while.

clarice

About time..

clarice

Well, what I'd be arguing at this time--remember it's on a motion to unseal the records--is that the referral was fraudulent and the underlying case to get Miller to testify tracks the fraud in the referral and he needs to see it to fully make out his case for dismissal based on that referral, TP.

clarice

Well, what I'd be arguing at this time--remember it's on a motion to unseal the records--is that the referral was fraudulent and the underlying case to get Miller to testify tracks the fraud in the referral and he needs to see it to fully make out his case for dismissal based on that referral, TP.

TP

I love a good game. Finally, the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" has taken the field against "Sorostan".

clarice

The leak about the prisons was actually a leak..I wonder if this time Tatel will argue that the leakee desrves protection? LL (He's a CLinton appointee).

clarice

The leak about the prisons was actually a leak..I wonder if this time Tatel will argue that the leakee desrves protection? LL (He's a CLinton appointee).

clarice

The leak about the prisons was actually a leak..I wonder if this time Tatel will argue that the leakee desrves protection? LL (He's a CLinton appointee).

p.lukasiak

If it is Toensing, she co-authored the Agee Act and has written with her co-author that it is inapplicable.

except for two rather gargantuan problems.

1) Toensing may know what she intended when she wrote the law, but AFAIK, although "legislative intent" is often considered when determining the meaning of a particular statute, "staff intent" is not considered relevant. (and lets not even discuss how easily her "interpretation" could be disregarded given her obviously partisan intentions.)

2) "Covert status" is based on factual information to which Toensing has no access.

Other than wingnut speculation, there is not a single shread of evidence that suggests there was anything fraudulent in Fitzgerald's filing. If you were to try and argue this in front of a judge, the only way you could avoid being sanctioned if it the judge was laughing so hard he couldn't say the words "You are in contempt of court."

p.lukasiak

If it is Toensing, she co-authored the Agee Act and has written with her co-author that it is inapplicable.

except for two rather gargantuan problems.

1) Toensing may know what she intended when she wrote the law, but AFAIK, although "legislative intent" is often considered when determining the meaning of a particular statute, "staff intent" is not considered relevant. (and lets not even discuss how easily her "interpretation" could be disregarded given her obviously partisan intentions.)

2) "Covert status" is based on factual information to which Toensing has no access.

Other than wingnut speculation, there is not a single shread of evidence that suggests there was anything fraudulent in Fitzgerald's filing. If you were to try and argue this in front of a judge, the only way you could avoid being sanctioned if it the judge was laughing so hard he couldn't say the words "You are in contempt of court."

p.lukasiak

If it is Toensing, she co-authored the Agee Act and has written with her co-author that it is inapplicable.

except for two rather gargantuan problems.

1) Toensing may know what she intended when she wrote the law, but AFAIK, although "legislative intent" is often considered when determining the meaning of a particular statute, "staff intent" is not considered relevant. (and lets not even discuss how easily her "interpretation" could be disregarded given her obviously partisan intentions.)

2) "Covert status" is based on factual information to which Toensing has no access.

Other than wingnut speculation, there is not a single shread of evidence that suggests there was anything fraudulent in Fitzgerald's filing. If you were to try and argue this in front of a judge, the only way you could avoid being sanctioned if it the judge was laughing so hard he couldn't say the words "You are in contempt of court."

p.lukasiak

The leak about the prisons was actually a leak..I wonder if this time Tatel will argue that the leakee desrves protection? LL (He's a CLinton appointee).

I don't see why he shouldn't treat it differently. As FitzG makes clear, there is good reason why we don't prosecute leaks to the press for the divulging of classified information under the Espionage Act. Should the CIA or other agency request a criminal referral, it would have to be under the Espionage Act --- and if we are gonna start prosecuting leaks under that law and forcing journalists to testify, there probably isn't an upper level Bush administration official who won't be in jail for leaking classified information to the press in the run up to the Iraq war. (Hell, depending upon the statute of limitations, they could nail White House officials going back to the Johnson administration. And Kissinger would certainly finally be brought to justice.)

clarice

Nonsense--she represents people on security issues regularly and knows that stuff like the back of her hand--she would easily qualify as an expert witness.
Try again,

clarice

Nonsense--she represents people on security issues regularly and knows that stuff like the back of her hand--she would easily qualify as an expert witness.
Try again,

clarice

Nonsense--she represents people on security issues regularly and knows that stuff like the back of her hand--she would easily qualify as an expert witness.
Try again,

dorf

The only thing that will will be covered this week will be the Republican "bloodbath" in CA, NJ and VA.

dorf

Clarice: no coverage at all. It does not fit the template.

dorf

Clarice: no coverage at all. It soes not fit the template.

dorf

Clarice: no coverage at all. It soes not fit the template.

dorf

Clarice: no coverage at all. It does not fit the template.

dorf

Clarice: no coverage at all. It does not fit the template.

topsecretk9

If Vallely and Muffin stick to it, and Fitzs' operation is still open, doesn't he have an obligation to have investigators speak to them...

and on that note, Vallely says there are many other CIA sources he knows and would likely pass on their names to investigators ---who presumably would be more likely to speak with investigators discreetly, rather than out in the open...

after all...it is Wilson and his defenders that keep asserting that Fitz. vindicated them with V.Plames classified-ness.

p.lukasiak

Nonsense--she represents people on security issues regularly and knows that stuff like the back of her hand--she would easily qualify as an expert witness.

on the meaning of a particular statute? Doubtful. If she was a lawyer in the case, she could argue her interpretation of the statute, but if anything her experience in "representing people" would be considered an unreliable/biased witness.

Plus, it would be a stupid thing to do -- judges don't like it when lawyers tell them how to do their job, and I suspect having witnesses give them instructions would go over even less well.

p.lukasiak

Nonsense--she represents people on security issues regularly and knows that stuff like the back of her hand--she would easily qualify as an expert witness.

on the meaning of a particular statute? Doubtful. If she was a lawyer in the case, she could argue her interpretation of the statute, but if anything her experience in "representing people" would be considered an unreliable/biased witness.

Plus, it would be a stupid thing to do -- judges don't like it when lawyers tell them how to do their job, and I suspect having witnesses give them instructions would go over even less well.

topsecretk9

If Vallely and Muffin stick to it, and Fitzs' operation is still open, doesn't he have an obligation to have investigators speak to them...

and on that note, Vallely says there are many other CIA sources he knows and would likely pass on their names to investigators ---who presumably would be more likely to speak with investigators discreetly, rather than out in the open...

after all...it is Wilson and his defenders that keep asserting that Fitz. vindicated them with V.Plames classified-ness.

p.lukasiak

Nonsense--she represents people on security issues regularly and knows that stuff like the back of her hand--she would easily qualify as an expert witness.

on the meaning of a particular statute? Doubtful. If she was a lawyer in the case, she could argue her interpretation of the statute, but if anything her experience in "representing people" would be considered an unreliable/biased witness.

Plus, it would be a stupid thing to do -- judges don't like it when lawyers tell them how to do their job, and I suspect having witnesses give them instructions would go over even less well.

clarice

Man, this place is weird today..I don't know that Fitz has an obligation to speak to them, but he might try to.I think Vallely will start the parade ..and it'll be a long one..

I think this would really be a good strategic move fore Libby.

clarice

Man, this place is weird today..I don't know that Fitz has an obligation to speak to them, but he might try to.I think Vallely will start the parade ..and it'll be a long one..

I think this would really be a good strategic move fore Libby.

clarice

Man, this place is weird today..I don't know that Fitz has an obligation to speak to them, but he might try to.I think Vallely will start the parade ..and it'll be a long one..

I think this would really be a good strategic move for Libby.


Lukasiak, I once had a case in the Supreme Ct of the US on the meaning of Landrum-Griffin and we used Griffin to say what it meant.

clarice

Man, this place is weird today..I don't know that Fitz has an obligation to speak to them, but he might try to.I think Vallely will start the parade ..and it'll be a long one..

I think this would really be a good strategic move for Libby.


Lukasiak, I once had a case in the Supreme Ct of the US on the meaning of Landrum-Griffin and we used Griffin to say what it meant.

dorf

The statute needs no interpretation. It is what it is, in fact quite plain albeit with lots of elements. Thus Scoot not charged with it. Because (this just in) SHE WAS NOT COVERT.

dorf

The statute needs no interpretation. It is what it is, in fact quite plain albeit with lots of elements. Thus Scoot not charged with it. Because (this just in) SHE WAS NOT COVERT.

dorf

The statute needs no interpretation. It is what it is, in fact quite plain albeit with lots of elements. Thus Scoot not charged with it. Because (this just in) SHE WAS NOT COVERT.

dorf

The statute needs no interpretation. It is what it is, in fact quite plain albeit with lots of elements. Thus Scoot not charged with it. Because (this just in) SHE WAS NOT COVERT.

clarice

You can say that again, dorf--But I'd put her on so that she can explain as an expert what "covert" means and what it doesn't and why Plame is not..She's done it dozens of times..

clarice

You can say that again, dorf--But I'd put her on so that she can explain as an expert what "covert" means and what it doesn't and why Plame is not..She's done it dozens of times..

clarice

You can say that again, dorf--But I'd put her on so that she can explain as an expert what "covert" means and what it doesn't and why Plame is not..She's done it dozens of times..

p.lukasiak

Lukasiak, I once had a case in the Supreme Ct of the US on the meaning of Landrum-Griffin and we used Griffin to say what it meant.

Clarice, correct me if I'm wrong, but "Griffin" was a legislator. As I have noted, judges often consider "legislative intent". But I've never heard of a judge using "partisan staff intent" to determine the intent of a statute.

oh, and last time I checked, witnesses did not appear before the Supreme Court -- so I think that you are full of shit.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

From Fitz's presser:

"Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

.....

"That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.
And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts."

How big a fool will he make of himself? Further "investigation" by him or his staff is only going to confirm the suspicion that his playbook was written in crayon.

p.lukasiak

Lukasiak, I once had a case in the Supreme Ct of the US on the meaning of Landrum-Griffin and we used Griffin to say what it meant.

Clarice, correct me if I'm wrong, but "Griffin" was a legislator. As I have noted, judges often consider "legislative intent". But I've never heard of a judge using "partisan staff intent" to determine the intent of a statute.

oh, and last time I checked, witnesses did not appear before the Supreme Court -- so I think that you are full of shit.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

From Fitz's presser:

"Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

.....

"That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.
And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts."

How big a fool will he make of himself? Further "investigation" by him or his staff is only going to confirm the suspicion that his playbook was written in crayon.

Wilson's a liar

p.luk -

Well in this case, the author of the IPAA is dead (Senator Goldwater) so I think Ms. Toensing may be a perfectly acceptable alternate witness, no?

Wilson's a liar

p.luk -

Well in this case, the author of the IPAA is dead (Senator Goldwater) so I think Ms. Toensing may be a perfectly acceptable alternate witness, no?

Wilson's a liar

p.luk -

Well in this case, the author of the IPAA is dead (Senator Goldwater) so I think Ms. Toensing may be a perfectly acceptable alternate witness, no?

Wilson's a liar

p.luk -

Well in this case, the author of the IPAA is dead (Senator Goldwater) so I think Ms. Toensing may be a perfectly acceptable alternate witness, no?

p.lukasiak

Well in this case, the author of the IPAA is dead (Senator Goldwater) so I think Ms. Toensing may be a perfectly acceptable alternate witness, no?

no. The point being that calling an "expert witness" to explain what a law means isn't going to happen. "Griffin" wasn't called to the stand to testify in front of the US Supreme Court.

He may have provided a "friend of the court" brief, or simply been cited by one of the attorney's in the case based on a conversation or other direct communication. But that doesn't make him a "witness".

p.lukasiak

Well in this case, the author of the IPAA is dead (Senator Goldwater) so I think Ms. Toensing may be a perfectly acceptable alternate witness, no?

no. The point being that calling an "expert witness" to explain what a law means isn't going to happen. "Griffin" wasn't called to the stand to testify in front of the US Supreme Court.

He may have provided a "friend of the court" brief, or simply been cited by one of the attorney's in the case based on a conversation or other direct communication. But that doesn't make him a "witness".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame